Martin Heinrich on Energy & Oil

Develop NM solar and wind, not coal and oil

The biggest topic was the economy and how to bring more jobs to the state. "Regulations that are coming out of Washington are making it tough for small businesses to grow," Wilson said.

"We've got to continue to fight for a White Sands and Holloman and
other federal installations here," Heinrich said. The main argument tonight included a specific type of job--ones in renewable energy.

"Congressman Heinrich has been off in Washington for 4 years pursuing a green dream on energy," Wilson said. Wilson
argues there are more jobs in coal and oil in New Mexico, but Heinrich says he's looking to the future.

"We have the second best solar exposure in the country," Heinrich said. "We have incredible wind on the east side of the state." It even became a
bit heated when Heinrich mentioned the environment played a role in the devastating fires in the Gilas as some audience members booed and others applauded. "A little thing called climate change that my opponent refuses to recognize," Heinrich said.

Supports cap-and-trade; it causes no big energy costs

Wilson criticized Heinrich for voting for the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, which passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate. Wilson said the bill would have amounted to significantly increased energy costs for New Mexicans.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the average cost per household at $1,600 a year. But that figure didn't include energy rebates that the Obama administration had proposed giving to consumers.
The proposal would have used revenue from cap-and-trade to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household, which the Budget Office said would have reduced the impact of the added costs.

Bush stood in way of development of clean, renewable energy

The Bush Administration and its allies have bent over backwards for big oil companies and stood in the way of the development of clean, renewable energy. Martin doesn’t believe in pandering to one special interest or another, or that one individual
energy source will be a silver bullet. It’s this kind of ‘one-or-the-other’ approach that got us in this mess in the first place. For this reason, Martin proposes an Apollo Project for Energy Independence.

Voted NO on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.

Congressional Summary:

Makes available for leasing, in the 2012-2017 five-year oil and gas leasing program, outer Continental Shelf areas that are estimated to contain more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil; or are estimated to contain more than 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Makes the production goal for the 2012-2017 five-year oil and gas leasing program an increase by 2027 in daily production of at least 3 million barrels of oil, and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Young, R-AK]: The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. In 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon, the public outcry forced Congress to act. That fall, Congress lifted the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development
has happened in these new areas.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:[Rep. Markey, D-MA]. In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.

Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change.

Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change.

Exempts from such prohibition existing regulations on fuel efficiency, research, or CO2 monitoring.

Repeals and makes ineffective other rules and actions concerning GHGs.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Upton, R-MI]: This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama EPA. This administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that
their emissions endangered public health. That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch an unparalleled onslaught. The result, two years later, is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.

Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

Congressional Summary:Requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012, 9.5% in 2014, 13% in 2016, 16.5% in 2018, and 20% in 2021). Provides for:

Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set forth a national strategy to address barriers to the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace.
It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy.